The Transnational Human Rights Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2021], Art. 1 parole leaves, or prison visits. On the contrary, the Supreme Court through its own order has set stringent conditions for release - only to those with three years of detention and exorbitant bail bonds.149 (d) Replicating an Assam model across India: Well-Founded Basis of Fear? The evaluation of the well-founded basis of the fear of replicating an Assam model across India is premised largely on current and former persecutory conduct that give a reasonable impression that the individual could face future risks from a related action. Under IRL, once past conduct is shown, there emerges a rebuttable presumption of risk over future conduct – unless there have been fundamental changes to the circumstances, 150 in this case, change in governance perhaps or other protective measures undertaken by the judiciary. This sub-section shows, why such protection does not appear to be forthcoming. Despite its roots in a parliamentary system, India’s constitutional courts have wide powers of judicial review, including the power to strike down any executive, legislative and even constitutive moves, which has the potential to alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution including rights to equality, secularism and the rights to approach courts for redress.151 In the NRC matter, not only have the courts failed to halt a procedure commenced and supervised by themselves, but they have also knocked on the executive for not concluding it sooner (by July 2019). In the Court’s opinion, all objections over the procedure, including the fact that millions of children who are descendants of individuals that have either not been found to be foreigners, or who have been termed so through compromised processes, could be handled as “incidental issues”.152 The Assam Accord’s implementation was supposed to be confined to the issue of ‘illegal migration’- irrespective of a religious criterion - at least on paper.153 But the discriminatory 149 Supreme Court Legal Services v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 1045 of 2018 (Order dated 10 May 2019) online: <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131586928/>. 150 For instance, see, Singh v Whitaker, 914 F 3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019). 151 See, Upendra Baxi, “Justice of Human Rights in Indian Constitutionalism: Preliminary Notes” in V.R. Mehta and Thomas Pantham, eds., Political Ideas in Modern India: Thematic Explorations (New Delhi, Sage Publications, 2007) at 270-271. (Professor Baxi, terms these features as “judicial governance”). 152 Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 274/2009 (Order dated 8 May 2019) online: <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160487049/>. 153 Although some could argue that the motive right from the commencement of the Accord, was to exclude Muslims. See, Murshid, supra note 78 at 597, footnote 36 referring to the statements of the former Election https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/thr/vol8/iss1/1 DOI: 10.60082/2563-4631.1096 26